Op-Ed: Is This the America You Want?

Tomorrow will be my last primary as a Republican. On Wednesday I will be changing my party registration to Independent. Now, before I go any further I want to say that when I say Republican or Democrat, I am only talking about the leadership and current office holders in the Federal and Pennsylvania Governments. In the grassroots there are a lot of good people, although not enough to make a difference at the upper levels of the two major parties.

It is my opinion the Republicans and Democrats have been and will continue our march to destruction. Our hope to save this country, and my State, is with the Independents and the minor parties. I can not in good conscience remain part of a two party system whose goal it is to destroy my Country and my State. And I am hoping millions will do the same as I am doing on Wednesday. Before the Republicans and Democrats complete their destruction of America and Pennsylvania, we need to destroy them. And the way to do that is for millions of us to leave, and join another party. I’m going to register Independent. I don’t care where the rest of go. There other parties. There’s the Libertarian and Constitution parties. And, you know what, I believe the Communist Party would be better than what we got now. I would rather have a Constitutional Communist than those who want nothing more than to destroy America and Pennsylvania. Republicans and Democrats do not love America, because if they did they would not want to destroy America.

Why do I say that? Do you know anything about the National Defense Authorization Act? I haven’t till recently. It’s a law that gets quietly passed every year. I have heard snippets now and then, but nothing too alarming. Keep in mind, neither Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity screamed their heads off about this. And if they care about America they should have.

The 2013 version of this Act passed the Senate 98-0. That means Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio voted for this. To get you more informed, I will now include about half of another article.

“The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and “options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria.”
.

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn’t appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of “terrorist attack.” The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.
.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.
.

The top 3 are:
.

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama’s foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the “indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President.” Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights…
.

It goes on…
.

“The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
.

This year’s bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, “the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US…”
.

Even Rand Paul who gave lip service against section 1021 voted for it. The Amendment he talked about he said “sharply limited” Section 1021, but it did not remove it. President Obama could have ignored the Amendment. And by the way, Allen West in the House also voted for this.

What about the 2014 bill? It passed the Republican House with the Indefinite Detention clause in tact. No Amendment limiting it’s power. And it passed the Senate 85-15. This time Rand Paul and company voted against the Act. And why wouldn’t they, 2014 is an election year. They don’t care about your freedom, all they care about is re-election, either of themselves or their friends. The fact is, I don’t trust these people.

This power of the President to hold a citizen indefinitely has been challenged in court. The latest article I can find about it is here: http://www.infowars.com/federal-court-o … detention/
Keep in mind, the majority of the Republicans in Congress voted for this power of the President to indefinitely detain a citizen. All the President has to say is, “I believe this person gave aid to terrorists.” And if I’m not mistaken, Acting President Obama has stated this about Edward Snowden. So, if Edward Snowden ever came back while Acting President Obama has this power, he will be held without due process of law indefinitely.

Is this the America you want?

This is the kind of America Republicans and Democrats are giving us. The Republican and Democrat parties must come to an end if we want true Americans to run this Country. And this is why I am leaving the Republican Party on Wednesday of this week. I have had enough of these treasonous people. They are enemies of our Constitution.
.

The squeeky wheel gets the oil.

.

Tom Lineaweaver is a blogger at Squeeky Wheel and a write-in candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. You can support him at https://www.facebook.com/groups/1433726336896316/ Opinions in this Op-Ed are not necessarily those of People Against the NDAA.